"Good Humored" Cardinal Inspired by Pope in Debate Over Evolution and Intelligent Design

It is hard to trust recent MSM reporting on the evolution debate, as I observed here only two days ago. Most media seemed to ignore the Pope's own words a week ago Wednesday when he embraced "intelligent design" (or "intelligent plan" or "intelligent project", depending on your pick of translations -- see here). Instead, some of them tried to elevate the ID-dissing Dr. George Coyne, Vatican astronomer, to the position of official voice of the Vatican. But maybe that is changing.

Cardinal Schoenborn, as quoted in the Reuters story, is laying out in broad strokes the philosophical issues that must inform the science debate.

This is refreshing because most Darwinists and most MSM don't want to acknowledge that a serious controversy over the philosophy of science is going on. For them, it's simply "science vs. religion." In the interview, the cardinal distinguishes between real science and ideology and charges "evolutionism" with exclusionist ideological claims. He is respectful toward the achievements of Darwin (as Discovery Institute scientists are, too, please note), but not toward Darwinism and the materialism it promotes in science and culture. And he insists that it should be acceptable to debate Darwin's theory in science class.

He avoids commenting on whether ID should be taught in US schools, but thinks the topic at least should be broached in Austrian schools, both public and private. (For reporters, please note once more Discovery Institute's own position: we do not support requiring ID in US public schools, a la Dover, only a fair airing of scientific evidence for and against Darwin's theory. We also, of course, do not want discussions of ID by instructors or students to be prohibited, especially in universities.)

One other point: in the Reuters interview Cardinal Schoenborn again appears serene and "good humored" in the knowledge that he has the Pope's support for the direction he has taken. Indeed, the Pope has "inspired" him.

So, one now asks, why are some leading media still touting Dr. Coyne as the voice of "the Vatican"? Don't his other unusual views--for example, the theological contention stated in a recent article that God is not omnipotent or omniscient--suggest he might not be a reliable spokesman for the Pope?

Here is another topic a more enterprising reporter might take up: Do you suppose that Pope Benedict and the churchman he chose as senior editor of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Cardinal Schoenborn, might be pleased that partly as a result of the present controversy people in Europe are beginning to notice and discuss the scientific materialism that has played a large role in the demoralization of Europe and much of the West?

Are there no editors out there, at least, who are more interested in reporting what is actually happening than they are in finding means to air as "news" opinions that simply agree with their own?